I Agree With Scott

I like to read Scott Bourne’s blog each day, and not everything he writes about is of interest to me, but every once in a while he touches on something that I totally agree with his opinion. This is something that I have been talking about forever, that images are not about what camera you use., it’s about the image. The subject matter, the composition, the lighting, is what is important, and the viewer (unless the viewers a photographer) really doesn’t care which camera, or lens, or processing tools you used. Check out Scott’s blog post. Here

Share this:

Like this:

Related

That particular post is just what Scott says it is from the very beginning, a rant. I’m not particularly fond of rants in general because in the end they really are nothing more than one person’s opinion. That isn’t to say that I don’t have opinions and can’t agree with the opinion of another person but ultimately, no matter how many people respond, even favorably, the argument isn’t validated by numbers. It’s still just opinion/s.

People seem to forget that the ‘greats’ that people often study, even today, in fact emulate sometimes when they are learning, didn’t create their photos with the technology we have in this age [digital cameras and a vast array of specialty lenses]. The people like Ansel Adams or Henri Cartier-Bresson and so on.. were able to capture photographs that are just as breathtaking today as when they were first seen and they did this using rather crude equipment in comparison to what one can buy even at a Walmart right now. And processing via software? Where do you think the terms burning and dodging and masking came from– that’s right, film.

There is far, far too much emphasis on who has what gear and too much push from manufacturers and sponsors of those manufacturers telling people what they must have and what makes a good photo. It really is crippling. People can feel discouraged because they don’t have a full frame camera instead of their crop sensor dslr or even ‘worse’ a point and shoot. Who says you can’t get nice photos with a point and shoot camera? In film?– a leica rangefinder rather than a leic-a-like [because all rangefinders if they aren’t leica are leicalikes aren’t they, nonsense], Lenses? How about Canon L glass instead of EF-S lenses– or hey a lensbaby. Forget all that, just get out and shoot, and have fun!

At the end of the day its the results you get.. not how you got them. If someone views a photo they are either going to be moved by it or walk away. They don’t care how long your setup took, how cold or how wet it was, they don’t care if you used film or digital or how much money your gear cost you. Good photographs are the result of a lot of practice, of understanding the gear you are using be it film or digital, being in the right place at the right time and on rare occasion even dumb luck.

So, while I can agree with Scott that older cameras or film cameras don’t necessarily make you a better photographer, they don’t stop you from being one either. I’m sure he is responding to the hipster movement extolling film and old film cameras, the lomographers that like light leaks and the purists that say [for them] it must be film. Well good for them! Sometimes it’s nice to play a record on a turntable too. I have both digital and film and I like both methods of capturing images. it really is okay to enjoy both. And some people [“But hey – it’s your choice. If you want to go live in the woods with nothing but stone and fire – go for it.” – Scott] like to go camping.

There just is no one way– except for the way that works for each individual.